drgondog
Major
The F6F edged the Mustang out by a hundred plus total air credits (US only) stats - but I'm still looking at RAF records to make sure those are included in the totals.
Best Pacific Fighter II
- Thread starter Catch22
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The F6F edged the Mustang out by a hundred plus total air credits (US only) stats - but I'm still looking at RAF records to make sure those are included in the totals.
dragonandhistail
Airman
Face it guys. The Hellcat was the top scorer in the pacific by a large margin. Yes it's performance was inferior to the F4U and P-38 in some regards but it was rugged, maneuverable, fast and available in great numbers. Give it the due it deserves and accept that your better performing aircraft did not outscore it or replace it because of all its good qualities.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Why did the Navy replace the Hellcat with the Corsair on carriers if they did not think it was a better choice?
I'll try to answer to that. USN was receiving F8F from Grumman lines. So, F6F was already being phased out by Grumman itself 
So when the WW2 ended, USN found itself with a developed tested fighter-bomber (F4U) and a new un-tested fighter (F8F). Since F8F was only slightly, slightly better as a fighter, while F4F was much better all-rounder, and the jets were seen as future, they simply went for they had in inventory and forgot about the 'former' (F6F) and 'future' (F8F) designs.
So when the WW2 ended, USN found itself with a developed tested fighter-bomber (F4U) and a new un-tested fighter (F8F). Since F8F was only slightly, slightly better as a fighter, while F4F was much better all-rounder, and the jets were seen as future, they simply went for they had in inventory and forgot about the 'former' (F6F) and 'future' (F8F) designs.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
TP, in May 1944, after a series of comparative tests, a Navy Evaluation Board concluded the F4U1D was the best all around fighter available and a suitable carrier fighter and that all fighter and fighter bomber units be converted to that type as soon as practicable. There were no F8Fs being produced at that time and the F6F was in full production.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The Bearcat was designed as a fleet defense fighter to be used off of CVEs. It did not reach the fleet until the war was over and the F4U1D and F4U4 were superior to the Hellcat in that role.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
A lot of the F6Fs combat record comes from being in the right place at the right time, in other words a combat rich environment. The F6F had many attributes that made is a world class fighter, but in technical terms there were a lot of characteristics found on the P-38 and F4U that made them a superior aircraft.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Then why was it deployed on a fleet carrier as the war ended?
The navy had every intention to make it an interceptor on CV's right from the beginning.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
From Linnekin, "80 knots to Mach Two." " There are several theories about the reason for the Bearcat. One is that it was designed to combat not only the newer Japanese fighters but also the Kamikaze threat. Considering that the first prototype Bearcat flew in August of 1944 and that the Kamikaze threat did not peak until early 1945, I doubt that theory. A more probable explanation and the one cited in "The Illustrated History of Fighters" is that it was designed to fill the need for better fighter performance on the smaller carriers, specifically the "Jeeps." In 1944 the small CVE escort or "Jeep" carriers carried improved Wildcat FM2 aircraft built by General Motors. They proved surprisingly effective but were substantially outperformed by the Hellcat." Linnekin was a career Navy pilot and flew the Bearcat operationally for quite some time in the late forties and early fifties.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Answer the question ..... if it was designed for light carriers, then why was the first carrier the first Bearcat squadron it was assigned to, (and under way to join the fleet in the Western Pacific when the war ended), a fleet carrier?
Sounds like some early ideas on its usage got preempted on the realities of the war.
Sounds like some early ideas on its usage got preempted on the realities of the war.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I don't think I am in court and don't think I have to answer any question. I am just quoting someone who I know knows more than me and possibly even more than all the "authorities" on this forum. Because it was first deployed on fleet carriers does not rule out what it may have been designed for, which I thought was the question. According to Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand" the P47 was designed as a high altitude fighter but was used most effectively as a tactical ground support fighter bomber during the latter stages of the war. That does not change the fact that it was not designed for that. It seems to me that a lot of aircraft on both sides during WW2 got used in a different manner than perhaps the designers envisioned. Personally I couldn't care less.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
I can answer the question. The F8F was not the result of any USN specifications, rather its specifications, Design 58, were drawn up by Leroy Grumman, himself, in July 1943, just as the F6F was entering combat - and yes, it was influenced to a degree by the FW 190 and, perhaps surprisingly, also by the GeeBee racers. Grumman pitched the F8F to BuAer as a replacement for the FM-2s operating off CVEs; the word Grumman actually used was "converted," which, of course, meant CVE-type carriers. From hence comes the thought that the F8F was designed for use on CVEs. This was, however, a simple marketing ploy to get BuAer's attention. Grumman knew that in meeting HIS spec's he had probably one of the hottest, most maneuverable, and, certainly one of the fastest climbing, piston fighters ever to come off the drawing board. The Grumman concept presented to BuAer a fighter with the potential for a better power-to-weight ratio than either of the then serving F6F-3 or F4U-1 - ultimately, the production F8F-1 would exceed the 8,500-pound limit set by Grumman, rising to 9,430 pounds. It would exhibit, nonetheless, a power-to-weight improvement 25% better than the F6F-3 and 27% better than the F4U-1, not to mention 10% better than the FW 190 - he was banking on BuAer drawing the same conclusion and seeing the F8F as the replacement for the F6F. And evidently they did, telling Grumman not to worry about the CVEs as they wanted the design for the new CVB class carriers as well as CVs. The flip side would have been that if BuAer decided it was only interested in replacing the FM-2s, then here was the absolutely perfect replacement designed to exactly that. No, the Navy was so impressed with the design that by November 1943 BuAer had authorized construction of two XF8F-1s and thinking about how to get them to the CVs.
So, the plan was developed to gradually eliminate F6Fs and replace them with F8Fs; push the F6Fs down to the CVE VC Rons and make them all F6Fs in complement, discarding their TBMs as they had no torpedo targets anyway and the IJN submarine fleet was seen as of little consequence (perhaps a somewhat premature conclusion). The thought was that there were sufficient F6Fs constructed already or in the pipeline to outfit the CVEs so that Grumman could concentrate on F8F production. There were even contracts for Eastern to build F3M's, the Eastern F8F, under license and discontinue FM-2 production. Eventually F8F production would catch up and the venerable F6F's, probably reaching the ends of their true combat usefullness aboard the CVEs would be replaced by F8Fs. And Leroy Grumman's originally pitched plan would finally come about. But not until the F8F was firmly in place on the CVs and CVLs. Note there were a total of 5253 F8F-1s plus the 1876 F3M-1s (total 7129) in those F8F contracts that were OBE and canceled; more than enough to fill both combat and training requirements for the plan.
Now, why replace the F6F with the F8F instead replacing the F4U? While acknowledged as a excellent fighter,the F4U was equally valued as a strike fighter, that is it's ability to haul and deliver ordnance. And, yes, so could the F6F, but if the F4U were eliminated, that presents the problem of Grumman having to producing both the F6F and the F8F, not to mention the F7F. It was not that the Navy was unhappy with the F6F, it was simply an economic/production issue. So, the F6F got the chop. Probably, IMO, much to Leroy Grumman's relief for, as with the F4F when it was replaced by the F6F, there was really not much more that could be done to improve the design.
Actually, this fell right in line with the Navy's thinking on fighters in the latter 1940's and into the 1950's. What BuAer wanted on carriers was a fast moving, fast climbing fighter for fleet and point defense and a second fighter for long range interception with a heavy strike capability. The F8F/F4U team fit this bill perfectly. After the war we see the same pattern; in fact, it was the F4U that was the type that stayed in service. So also, perhaps BuAer's enthusiasm for the F8F was also a hedge on the potential operability of jets (remember the FD-1 was also authorized in mid-1943). In the end, overtaken by the end of the war and technological advances, F8Fs were replaced by jets (F2Hs and F9Fs, mostly) and F4Us remained the duty fighter-bomber type as it was a better ordnance deliverer than the smaller F8F.
If you look at Navy planning documents written in late 1945 for naval aviation organization in the post war years the first thing that jumps out at you is that by December 1945, the plans show CV's with four possible air group configurations:
A - 49 F8F; 4 F8F-P; 4 F8F-N; 24 SB2C; 20 TBM
B - 49 F4U; 4 F4U-P; 4 F4U-N; 24 SB2C; 20 TBM
C - 31 F8F; 2 F8F-P; 4 F8F-N; 36 F4U; 15 SB2C; 15 TBM
D - 25 F8F; 4 F8F-P; 4 F8F-N; 24 F4U; 12 SB2C; 20 TBM
CVL air groups were specified to have complements of 22 F8F; 2 F8F-P; 9 TBM.
CVE air groups were specified to have complements of 16 F8F; 2 F8F-P; 12 TBM.
CVG(N) were specified to have complements of 1 F8F-P; 36 F8F-N; 18 TBM.
The only place you see F6Fs mentioned is their possible use as nightfighter and photo-recon types until the newer F8F and F4U types for the same missions become available.
The F8Fs bread and butter was the rapid climb to altitude as a fleet defense fighter. With an R2800 engine on such a, comparatively, light frame the F8F was capable of some remarkable performance. Indeed, on one occasion, at the Cleveland Air Races in November 1946, a couple of F8Fs performed back-to-back climb to times, from a dead stop to 10,000 feet, the first in 100 seconds and then, the second, 97.8 seconds. The 97.8 second record, including a 115 foot takeoff run, was a record for piston aircraft that stood for many years and, I believe, still stands for standard equipped military piston aircraft.
Rich
So, the plan was developed to gradually eliminate F6Fs and replace them with F8Fs; push the F6Fs down to the CVE VC Rons and make them all F6Fs in complement, discarding their TBMs as they had no torpedo targets anyway and the IJN submarine fleet was seen as of little consequence (perhaps a somewhat premature conclusion). The thought was that there were sufficient F6Fs constructed already or in the pipeline to outfit the CVEs so that Grumman could concentrate on F8F production. There were even contracts for Eastern to build F3M's, the Eastern F8F, under license and discontinue FM-2 production. Eventually F8F production would catch up and the venerable F6F's, probably reaching the ends of their true combat usefullness aboard the CVEs would be replaced by F8Fs. And Leroy Grumman's originally pitched plan would finally come about. But not until the F8F was firmly in place on the CVs and CVLs. Note there were a total of 5253 F8F-1s plus the 1876 F3M-1s (total 7129) in those F8F contracts that were OBE and canceled; more than enough to fill both combat and training requirements for the plan.
Now, why replace the F6F with the F8F instead replacing the F4U? While acknowledged as a excellent fighter,the F4U was equally valued as a strike fighter, that is it's ability to haul and deliver ordnance. And, yes, so could the F6F, but if the F4U were eliminated, that presents the problem of Grumman having to producing both the F6F and the F8F, not to mention the F7F. It was not that the Navy was unhappy with the F6F, it was simply an economic/production issue. So, the F6F got the chop. Probably, IMO, much to Leroy Grumman's relief for, as with the F4F when it was replaced by the F6F, there was really not much more that could be done to improve the design.
Actually, this fell right in line with the Navy's thinking on fighters in the latter 1940's and into the 1950's. What BuAer wanted on carriers was a fast moving, fast climbing fighter for fleet and point defense and a second fighter for long range interception with a heavy strike capability. The F8F/F4U team fit this bill perfectly. After the war we see the same pattern; in fact, it was the F4U that was the type that stayed in service. So also, perhaps BuAer's enthusiasm for the F8F was also a hedge on the potential operability of jets (remember the FD-1 was also authorized in mid-1943). In the end, overtaken by the end of the war and technological advances, F8Fs were replaced by jets (F2Hs and F9Fs, mostly) and F4Us remained the duty fighter-bomber type as it was a better ordnance deliverer than the smaller F8F.
If you look at Navy planning documents written in late 1945 for naval aviation organization in the post war years the first thing that jumps out at you is that by December 1945, the plans show CV's with four possible air group configurations:
A - 49 F8F; 4 F8F-P; 4 F8F-N; 24 SB2C; 20 TBM
B - 49 F4U; 4 F4U-P; 4 F4U-N; 24 SB2C; 20 TBM
C - 31 F8F; 2 F8F-P; 4 F8F-N; 36 F4U; 15 SB2C; 15 TBM
D - 25 F8F; 4 F8F-P; 4 F8F-N; 24 F4U; 12 SB2C; 20 TBM
CVL air groups were specified to have complements of 22 F8F; 2 F8F-P; 9 TBM.
CVE air groups were specified to have complements of 16 F8F; 2 F8F-P; 12 TBM.
CVG(N) were specified to have complements of 1 F8F-P; 36 F8F-N; 18 TBM.
The only place you see F6Fs mentioned is their possible use as nightfighter and photo-recon types until the newer F8F and F4U types for the same missions become available.
The F8Fs bread and butter was the rapid climb to altitude as a fleet defense fighter. With an R2800 engine on such a, comparatively, light frame the F8F was capable of some remarkable performance. Indeed, on one occasion, at the Cleveland Air Races in November 1946, a couple of F8Fs performed back-to-back climb to times, from a dead stop to 10,000 feet, the first in 100 seconds and then, the second, 97.8 seconds. The 97.8 second record, including a 115 foot takeoff run, was a record for piston aircraft that stood for many years and, I believe, still stands for standard equipped military piston aircraft.
Rich
Last edited:
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Leonard, youre a walking encyclopedia.
BTW, even though the TBM's didnt have any ships left to torpedo, were they not still usefull as level bombers?
BTW, even though the TBM's didnt have any ships left to torpedo, were they not still usefull as level bombers?
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
Of course they could, but why clutter up a CVE with TBMs when you can put aboard 25% more F6Fs that can easily haul 1000 lbs of bombs.
At least that was the way it was explained to me.
At least that was the way it was explained to me.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Leonard, that was a great post!
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Rich, Many thanks for your post. Most informative and interesting to read. Linnekin, in " 80 Knots to Mach Two," relates many of his experiences flying the Bearcat. He flew the Stearman, SNJ, Hellcat, Corsair, AD, Panther, Cougar, Banshee, Crusader and Phantom II. I believe he said the Bearcat was his favorite.
Last edited:
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
Yeah, if your timing was good., you could have gone from biplanes to supersonics.
My father started in N3N's at Pensacola in July 1940. In May 1957 he flew an F8U-1 he'd borrowed from VX-3. Later still, in August 1966, while in duty with DDR&E he had an opportunity to drive an Air Force F4D, though they insisted that someone ride in the back seat, just in case.
50 different types; 35 variants of 16 of those types; 85 total types/variants
In order of first type flight:
N3N-1
O3U-2
SNJ-2; SNJ-3; SNJ-4; SNJ-5
F4B-4
SBC-4
SU-2/3
F3F-1
SBU-1
F4F-3; F4F-4; FM-1; FM-2
P-40E
F6F-3; F6F-5
SBD-3; SBD-5
F4U-1; F4U-1A; F4U-1C; F4U-4C; F4U-5N; F4U-5; F3A-1
TBF-1
XFR-1; FR-1
A6M2; A6M5
F7F-2N; XF7F-2; F7F-3N
JRB-4
SOC-1
SC-1
F8F-1; F8F-2
P-59B
XF2G-1; F2G-1; F2G-2
P-51C
SB2C-4; SB2C-5
Mosquito
P-80
XF8B-1
XF15C-1
XBT2D-1
FD-1/FH-1
AM-1
FJ-1
AD-2; AD-3Q; AD-4Q; AD-6; AD-5N
F2H-1; F2H-2; F2H-3; F2H-4
F9F-2; F9F-5
F-86-A5; CF-86
F9F-6; F9F-7; F9F-8; F9F-8T
TV-2
F3D-2
F7U-3 (J36); F7U-3 (J46)
FJ-3
F3H-2N
F8U-1
T28-B
T2V
TF-1
S2E
F4D
T-39
Rich
My father started in N3N's at Pensacola in July 1940. In May 1957 he flew an F8U-1 he'd borrowed from VX-3. Later still, in August 1966, while in duty with DDR&E he had an opportunity to drive an Air Force F4D, though they insisted that someone ride in the back seat, just in case.
50 different types; 35 variants of 16 of those types; 85 total types/variants
In order of first type flight:
N3N-1
O3U-2
SNJ-2; SNJ-3; SNJ-4; SNJ-5
F4B-4
SBC-4
SU-2/3
F3F-1
SBU-1
F4F-3; F4F-4; FM-1; FM-2
P-40E
F6F-3; F6F-5
SBD-3; SBD-5
F4U-1; F4U-1A; F4U-1C; F4U-4C; F4U-5N; F4U-5; F3A-1
TBF-1
XFR-1; FR-1
A6M2; A6M5
F7F-2N; XF7F-2; F7F-3N
JRB-4
SOC-1
SC-1
F8F-1; F8F-2
P-59B
XF2G-1; F2G-1; F2G-2
P-51C
SB2C-4; SB2C-5
Mosquito
P-80
XF8B-1
XF15C-1
XBT2D-1
FD-1/FH-1
AM-1
FJ-1
AD-2; AD-3Q; AD-4Q; AD-6; AD-5N
F2H-1; F2H-2; F2H-3; F2H-4
F9F-2; F9F-5
F-86-A5; CF-86
F9F-6; F9F-7; F9F-8; F9F-8T
TV-2
F3D-2
F7U-3 (J36); F7U-3 (J46)
FJ-3
F3H-2N
F8U-1
T28-B
T2V
TF-1
S2E
F4D
T-39
Rich
syscom3
Pacific Historian
He actually flew a Mosquito? How did he manage that?
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Wow, What an odyssey. Must be some kind of record. I would bet that Linnekin was acquainted with your father. He graduated early from the academy and served in surface ships in 1945 and then came back to go into aviation. Flew Panthers in Korea and I think his last flying in the Navy was the Phantom II. I left off a few AC he flew earlier, including the A4 but his list was nothing compared to your father's.
Last edited:
